Don’t Like It, Don’t Buy It

Thanks for this Pete. We each have to take responsibility for what level of discourse we will approve. When my wife trains horses she rewards them each time they do something right. I sent Obama a donation this afternoon after his campaign took responsibility for acting beneath the standard he has promulgated. I will send more if and when he accepts public financing.

I have not found any reason to send Sen Clinton an donations.

Peter,

What is it about Andrew Sullivan that makes you a fan?

I mean he has misogynistic tendencies, his racial utterings are vile and his anti-Islam utterings have moved into the realm of his racial utterings. When there was general disagreement on US strategy prior to the Iraq war he was more than willing to accuse his opponents of being traitors, while excusing all kind of totalitarian BS from the "true believers". He seems to be some of the worst parts of the Republican party wrapped up in the cool veneer of a Gay Brit from an upper class school.

Again, why are you a fan?

Loviatar,

Regarding Sullivan ...

1. He's extremely intelligent.

2. He's willing to admit when he's wrong -- e.g., he has changed his tune 180 degrees on Iraq.

3. He's extremely reasonable on most points -- a true middle of the roader in a lot of ways.

4. He's written one of the best books -- The Conservative Soul -- that I've read in a very long time.

I honestly have no idea what you're referring to when you speak of his "racial utterings" or any of the other adjectives you attached to him.

Paul,

1. I agree he is highly intelligent , too bad he tends to use his intelligence to suppory questionable causes.

2. He admitted he was wrong for thinking that the Bush administration could competently prosecute the Iraq war, he has never admitted that the war was wrong. And he has as many excuses as Hillary Clinton as to why he supported it in the first place.

3. No he is not. He speaks well, he writes well and all with that cool British veneer, however the economic, foreign and healthcare policies that he supports are well to the right of the current general population. He is still stuck in the Reagan era 80's.

4. I agree totally. he just needs to follow it, especially in regards to his Hillary Hate.


And as far as the adjectives go;

Misogynistic - Have you read his writings on Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi.

Racial Utterings - His continued support for the disproven Bell Curve is just a small example of some of his more - lets call it - dicey racial utterings.

Anti-Islam Utterings - Yesterday post "Sharia At Harvard" was one of his milder anti-Islam screeds.

Demonize Opponents - Andrew Sullivan said "The middle part of the country--the great red zone that voted for Bush--is clearly ready for war. The decadent left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead--and may well mount a fifth column." - London Sunday Times, 9/16/01

Excuser of totalitarian BS - Very early supporter of the Patriot Act.


Those are some of my reasons for not being an "Andrew Sullivan" fan, however you he does talk real pretty.

"the economic, foreign and healthcare policies that he supports are well to the right of the current general population. He is still stuck in the Reagan era 80's."

OK -- but that's a difference of opinion between you and he, not an indication that he's a bad person. And frankly, while I may be a little more to the left than he is, I'm also to the right of many in the current electorate.

"Have you read his writings on Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi."

Yes, and he seems to criticize their politics -- not their gender.

"Yesterday post 'Sharia At Harvard' was one of his milder anti-Islam screeds."

Didn't strike me as a screed, at all. In fact, I agree with him. Separation of church and state runs all ways. State-run institutions shouldn't give preference or grant such concessions to any religion. That's America.

I could go on an on, but what we seem to have hear is nothing more than a disagreement, competing POV's, and that's fine. That's also America.

Well I don't know about being turned off for a generation, but McCain will get my vote if the superdelegates pull that stunt. I'm pretty confident he'll get the vote of every middle of the roader that wants a choice. McCain has shown he has strong pull with moderates, they pretty much got him the nomination. Clinton will not be getting any of the GOP votes that were willing to cross the isle, nor any of the left of middle that wanted Obama and lost him to back room politicking.

I fully expect the Dems to pull this bonehead stunt because they are adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The people don't want to be lead around by the nose any more than they already are. Their foolish dumping of Lieberman in 2006 when the margin of control was that close was one of the most breathtakingly stupid political moves I have ever seen, and true democrat through and through. I'm still surprised he caucauses with them after getting that knife in the back. I would not have been so kind.

Just read the Sharia at Harvard. He's dead on, how dare they kick students out of public facilities for a religous quirk. Work out at home if you insist on such backwards beliefs that impinge on the rights of others. I'm fine with people practicing their religon, but the SECOND it means others have to defacto practice it as well, you have gone too far.

Pete, I think you're missing the point. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, what is the alternative to voting for her? Either voting for McCain, or not voting at all. I am one of those people utterly disgusted by Clinton's behavior, by her corrupt lust for power over any sense of concern for the larger interests of her party and her country, etc., etc. I could go on, but you know that drill. I have already decided that if Clinton is nominated, I will not vote for her. And since I won't vote for McCain either, I will have to sit the election out. If others do that in large enough numbers, McCain will be elected president. If I'm an anomaly, and most Democrats and/or former Obama supporters do vote for Clinton, *she* will be elected. Either one of those results will be awful, but neither one will be MY fault, or the fault of others who decided not to vote. We don't have any control over who gets nominated, after all. We are presented with the choice, and if the choice is impossible, that is not our fault.

kathy,

I guess my reaction was rooted more in the fact that there's still time to stop Hillary from using her tactics to win the nom.

If those "yes we can" chants are real, then all those who have already boosted Obama, should continue to do so, including everything in their power to make their case to the people of Pennsylvania and other still-to-vote states. Those states don't have to accept Hillary's tactics -- only a majority has to reject them and if they don't, then they've disproven "Yes we can," i.e., how is a nation going to change its course even with Obama in office if we fail to get him in office in the first place?

It's not Hillary's fault if she wins -- it's the Obama supporters' who failed to go the extra mile to make the case for their man. I'm not trying to be critical of you or any other Obama supporter, I'm just saying that if you really believe in him, if you really believe "yes we can," then do something about it. And if what you've done to date hasn't worked, do something more.

Democracy remains in our collective hands.

Paul,

As you said, we can disagree on liking or disliking Andrew Sullivan and thats fine but please do not try and make excuses for Sullivan's misogyny towards Hillary Clinton. His writings and comments regarding her have moved so far beyond her politics that he has even had to apologize to his audience at The Atlantic for some of them.

And I while agree with your general comments regarding separation of church and state and its application in the Harvard case. What I actually said was the 'Sharia At Harvard' screed was one of his milder anti-Islam screeds. A simple google search finds many more egregious examples.

Slamfu,

Your hyperbole would be amusing if it wasn't a little scary.

Paul said that "State-run institutions shouldn't give preference or grant such concessions to any religion. That's America." and it a perfect world this would true. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect word we live in the reality based America, the place where the government makes allowances all the time for religion. To single out one religion and scream bloody murder because they provide their female Muslim student six hours a week for private exercise seems a little over the top and maybe a little bigoted.

I grew up in NY where the school system shut down for every major Jewish holiday.- how dare they kick students out of public facilities for a religious quirk.

I'm waiting for the scream.

Pete: great reply to Sullivan.

Kathy: 'Pete, I think you're missing the point. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, what is the alternative to voting for her? Either voting for McCain, or not voting at all. I am one of those people utterly disgusted by Clinton's behavior, by her corrupt lust for power over any sense of concern for the larger interests of her party and her country, etc., etc. I could go on, but you know that drill. I have already decided that if Clinton is nominated, I will not vote for her. And since I won't vote for McCain either, I will have to sit the election out. If others do that in large enough numbers, McCain will be elected president. If I'm an anomaly, and most Democrats and/or former Obama supporters do vote for Clinton, *she* will be elected. Either one of those results will be awful, but neither one will be MY fault, or the fault of others who decided not to vote. We don't have any control over who gets nominated, after all. We are presented with the choice, and if the choice is impossible, that is not our fault.'

So, in essence, you are a zombie, and cannot think outside a duality. Think third party. The fact that you don't and others who are disgusted do not shows what is wrong with this country- it is not the Bushes, the Clintons, or McCain, but YOU!

Take responsibility and change things. Do not be lazy. If O loses to Hill I'll go 3rd party, for the 4th st. election. I will NOT vote for hacks like Gore, Kerry, or Clinton, much less wacks like Bush or Mac.

Damn, you are unreal. REALLY read what you typed.

Cosmo -- IMHO, your response to Kathy might be a little harsh. Perhaps mine was, too, though I certainly didn't mean it to be. I assume you didn't mean to be, either.

Kathy -- I understand your concerns and frustrations, I do. But I also think there's still time to make a difference ... at least I hope there is. If all else fails, there's always the Obama write-in option.

Holidays are different. You have to be really bigoted not to take a day off. It could be "Kill Whitey Day" and I'll be at the beach. I'd love to take Ramadan off. But we're not talking about that, we are talking about specific religous perks during the day to day. You might have a problem if your NY system decided to cater to Kosher meals only right? Or not serving meat on good friday?

Also, we are talking about women not being able to be seen in public with men, are you kidding me? This country spent a great deal of effort to get out of the middle ages in the 60's. But its ok if you're from a nation that routinely treats its women like dirt to go back to it.

Slamfu,

You are joking right, come on now your comment "Holidays are different." can't be serious now can it. You do realize that when the NYC school system shuts down for the Jewish High Holy days they are shutting down for a Religious Holiday. Also, have you noticed that more than a couple of the federal holidays seem to fall suspiciously close to Christian Religious Holidays.

Have you ever eaten lunch in a public school/university, they make allowances all the time for religions, whether its offering a kosher option or the option of a meatless Good Friday (key word option). And If you ever visit NYC, head down to Williamsburg in Brooklyn where the orthodox Jews follow the same public separation of male and female members. Its kind of funny and unusual the first time a person of the opposite sex crosses the street to avoid walking next to you.

Finally, whats with the strawmen recently from people here at TMV, yesterday it was Jill today its you. At no time have I said that I approve of the practice of separating men and women in public. However America was founded on religious tolerance, it is enshrined in our Constitution and I think we need to be a little more tolerant of the situation at Harvard. If we are going to demagogue a particular religion (Islam) for using public places during pursuit of their religious activity then we should make sure we apply the same demagoguery to all religions who do the same.

Religous holidays are part of our mulitculturalism. I have no problem with all of us taking time to respect the beliefs of others, or allowing them time off of work to respect their own. This is understandable. This country is largely christian so for days off in christian holidays you might as well shut down most major institutions as well. If this country was 90% Muslim I'd expect that for the sacred days of Islam. Maybe someday it will be that way, and I'm ok with that.

And I have no problem with menus making options for religous diets, thats just thoughtful. But if you make that the only option is where you run into trouble. And no doubt the orthodox jews separate their men from the women, which I also consider pretty backwards, but do they insist others do the same on public property? Or do they practice that amongst themselves? My point is, religons are whacky, but we all need to get along. How can we get along if people insist on forcing their whackyness upon others? In public we are all equal, and as long as we are not harming or impinging on the freedoms of our fellow citizens, male and female, we are ok. We start making exceptions for religous beliefs that run directly opposite that and things are going to get ugly.

Yanno, come to think of it Harvard is a private university, they can do what they want. But I still hold to what I said regarding public universities.

I guess my reaction was rooted more in the fact that there's still time to stop Hillary from using her tactics to win the nom.

Okay, I did misunderstand your point, then. I agree there's still time to stop Clinton. I know that *I'm* not going to be influenced by Clinton's cynical, business-as-usual approach to politics.

I'm not trying to be critical of you or any other Obama supporter, I'm just saying that if you really believe in him, if you really believe "yes we can," then do something about it. And if what you've done to date hasn't worked, do something more.

I really believe in him. I haven't been excited like this about a presidential candidate since -- well, I think since forever. I was too young to vote for Kennedy when he ran for president. And you're right -- if I'm this enthusiastic about Obama, if it's that important to me that he be nominated, then I have to do more than vote for him, because I can't vote for him if he isn't nominated (yes, I know write-in, but that's a futile gesture). I've had it in mind for a while now to go over to Obama's official website and volunteer to help. I hadn't gotten around to doing it yet. Your response to my comment inspired me to do it. It took about 10 seconds. So thank you, Pete.

As you said, we can disagree on liking or disliking Andrew Sullivan and thats fine but please do not try and make excuses for Sullivan's misogyny towards Hillary Clinton.

I'm certainly not up on everything Sullivan has written about Clinton, but speaking only about this particular post he wrote -- the subject of Pete's piece, here -- what he (Sullivan) wrote is not misogynistic toward Clinton. It's the truth. Every word that he wrote in that post is the truth. I've never liked Clinton that much, but I would have voted for her in the fall to get a Democrat into the White House. But not anymore. Her "winning is not the most important thing; it's the only thing" attitude nauseates me. We've had eight years of that toxic waste. We don't need any more.

Slamfu,

I owe you an apology, I think I see where the problem is, you received your information from two sources with a significant bias against Islam (Andrew Sullivan and Michael Graham). Andrew and Michael skewed the story in order to present it in the most negative way possible towards Islam, please click over to this article in The Harvard Crimson which gives a more complete and balanced review of the situation.



Quick summary:
Female members of a Harvard intramural swim team, who happen to be Muslim asked the University to restrict access to women only to one of their 6 gyms with a pool for 1 hour a day so that they could practice. The university complied with the request because restricting access to the gym would not be an major inconvenience as the gym happened to be located in a distant part of the university and their would be 5 other gyms with pools available to the rest of the community.

How this became an issue:
Michael Graham a right wing conservative columnist for the Boston Herald decided that this would be a great story to use to highlight the rising threat that Islam is to the American way of life. From there the rest of the conservative right wing Wurlitzer (Andrew Sullivan, etc.) got ahold of it and turned it into the implementation of "Sharia At Harvard".

The sad part is even though this is a bogus issue, by Paul and sites like TMV picking it up, the issue then becomes another way the right wing has inserted therir storyline of "Isalm vs. America" into the mainstream.

Finally, this is a great example of why we must take every story presented by the right wing with a grain of salt, and we must check their facts and understand their biases before wholeheartedly buying into their storyline. Last time we didn't do that it cost us over 4,000 American dead.

For future reference; If Andrew Sullivan post anything on Hillary Clinton or Islam, please confirm independently, he has a very pronounced bias when it comes to those two subjects.


P.S.

The right wing Wurlitzer is a great thing, 95% of the stories on the web all have "Sharia" spin.

kathyedits,

Whether the piece Paul references is no misogynistic or not, or if its even true or not is besides the point. My point to Paul and you is that Andrew Sullivan is a misogynist, his writings and comments have used language in a way that degrades Hillary Clinton (to a lesser extent Nancy Pelosi) not for her policies or politics but for her sex.

Now you may find using articles from a misogynist to make your case against Hillary Clinton helpful, however I just find it disgusting. If I need to make a case against Hillary Clinton I'll make it without the misogynist's help.

Actually your right. With that info the request for the womens only gym usage seems totally reasonable. I have to admit I allowed myself to get all worked up over a non-issue.

"For future reference; If Andrew Sullivan post anything on Hillary Clinton or Islam, please confirm independently, he has a very pronounced bias when it comes to those two subjects."

I'll bear that in mind. This is why I come to this site. I frankly don't have the time to research all the sources of news as I read them, its good to have others that are into the topics to keep things for lack of a better term, fair and balanced.

My point to Paul and you is that Andrew Sullivan is a misogynist, his writings and comments have used language in a way that degrades Hillary Clinton (to a lesser extent Nancy Pelosi) not for her policies or politics but for her sex.

I understand what your point is. My point is just different from your point. My point concerns only this particular post that Andrew Sulllivan wrote.

Now you may find using articles from a misogynist to make your case against Hillary Clinton helpful, however I just find it disgusting.

I think that's perfectly understandable. The problem I have is that I have not read anything by Andrew Sullivan that I would consider misogynistic. I may have missed the articles to which you refer. Unfortunately, given that I haven't seen them, and don't know which articles you are, I can't just take your word for it that Sullivan is misogynistic. That would not be fair to him. I have to make my decisions about which articles to use in making my points on the basis of what I know, from direct observation, to be true about the author of those articles.

"Unfortunately, given that I haven't seen them, and don't know which articles you are... "

That should, of course, have read, "... and don't know which articles THEY are..."

kathyedits,

Some help for your research on Andrew Sullivan:

If you type in Andrew Sullivan Hillary Clinton without quotation marks google will give you articles by Andrew Sullivan on Hillary Clinton.

If you type in "Andrew Sullivan Hillary Clinton" with quotation marks google will give you results of people talking about Andrew Sullivan's coverage of Hillary Clinton.


Some of my favorites Sullivanisms about Hillary.

Cooties

Compilation of links by conservative blogger Patterico who calls Sullivan a "Clinton Hater".

John Cole says its Time For An Intervention.

"I've had it in mind for a while now to go over to Obama's official website and volunteer to help. I hadn't gotten around to doing it yet. Your response to my comment inspired me to do it. It took about 10 seconds. So thank you, Pete."

You're welcome -- and good for you. a coule million more people doing that, and he could win this thing, after all. I certainly hope he does, the Dem nom at least.